Not only did someone at Microsoft think that it was a good idea to make Metro the primary user interface in Windows 8, but they also decided to destroy the 'classic' user interface experience too by also 'Ribbonizing' most of the applications. These Ribbon toolbars are packed with small user elements and are fiddly to use with a mouse, and even more fiddly - at times bordering on impossible to use - when driven with a finger.

The Ribbon toolbars, which we first saw in Office 2007, weren't developed with touch in mind, but it appears that Microsoft has decided to adopt them as a cheap alternative to spreading the Metro user interface across the whole of Windows 8. Not only do they not work well on touch systems, they're also terribly cluttered and confusing.

Yeah, I knew this was gonna be a clusterf*ck when they said the design was made mainly for tablets and other touchscreen devices. That's fine for them, but causes a bit of a problem when you want people using PCs or laptops to use it.

vartian:BunkyBrewman: ...as does Windows 8... for anything with a keyboard.

Apparently, it sucks on everything:

Not only did someone at Microsoft think that it was a good idea to make Metro the primary user interface in Windows 8, but they also decided to destroy the 'classic' user interface experience too by also 'Ribbonizing' most of the applications. These Ribbon toolbars are packed with small user elements and are fiddly to use with a mouse, and even more fiddly - at times bordering on impossible to use - when driven with a finger.

The Ribbon toolbars, which we first saw in Office 2007, weren't developed with touch in mind, but it appears that Microsoft has decided to adopt them as a cheap alternative to spreading the Metro user interface across the whole of Windows 8. Not only do they not work well on touch systems, they're also terribly cluttered and confusing.

FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.

Windows' general design has been going downhill since 3.11, and that one wasn't terrific, either.

I've stuck with XP because XP was actually an improvement over its immediate predecessors. Expecting any later version to be an improvement on XP is an act of absurd optimism, and I'm rarely absurd and optimistic at the same time.

so, i've been running windows 8 ... one of my big problems is how they force me to 'sign in' to access a lot of features, and worse, they make me 'link' an account that if you use an xbox, is automatically linked to your credit card or billing info...not secure at all

kwirlkarphys:so, i've been running windows 8 ... one of my big problems is how they force me to 'sign in' to access a lot of features, and worse, they make me 'link' an account that if you use an xbox, is automatically linked to your credit card or billing info...not secure at all

AKA... The Apple Method. Want to do something, sign in with your AppleID. Frigging annoying. Also, I cannot fathom how game developers are going to code for this type of UI.

Somacandra:FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.

Sounds as if you might like Stardock's Fences app. There's a basic, free version.

RandomAxe:Windows' general design has been going downhill since 3.11, and that one wasn't terrific, either.

I've stuck with XP because XP was actually an improvement over its immediate predecessors. Expecting any later version to be an improvement on XP is an act of absurd optimism, and I'm rarely absurd and optimistic at the same time.

The Program Manager from Windows 3.1 was horrible. Windows 95 was one of the best things they ever did from a UI standpoint, which is why it has worked so well and been copied by almost everyone else for nearly two decades. Now they want to throw all that away just to try and jump into the tablet market where they'll be crushed by Apple.

RandomAxe:Windows' general design has been going downhill since 3.11, and that one wasn't terrific, either.

I've stuck with XP because XP was actually an improvement over its immediate predecessors. Expecting any later version to be an improvement on XP is an act of absurd optimism, and I'm rarely absurd and optimistic at the same time.

Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

Yes, we all know, by now, that you can access the "Start" menu with the Window key. Fine.

Except one small problem.... the Metro screen is NOT the Start Menu. The Metro screen is why we switched back to the desktop mode in the first place. The Metro screen is an abomination for desktop computing. What works for tablets does not work for desktops.

All that said, you can restore the REAL "Start" button and the REAL "Start" menu with vistart. The point is that Microsoft should never have removed it.

FTFAuser interface experience too by also 'Ribbonizing' most of the applications

Nothing I hate more than 'ribbons'. Inconsistent mess of words and icons. It takes twice the mouse clicks to do anything any more. Consistency and predictability are hallmarks of interface design and Microsoft has basically thrown all that out the window with these idiotic designs.

Somacandra:FTFA: Microsoft has thrown away this concept and instead adopted a system called the Start Screen where the links to all your apps are spread across the screen.

Wow. This was odd to read. I've done this for years anyway. I cluster app shortcuts I use 90% of the time in different screen areas. That's how I've liked it. I can't stand the Start button and scrolling through different columns. I guess its the opposite for lots of people? Actually now I cluster my working document folders on one side of the screen and the app that I need opens when I open the document. After all, who opens apps for the sake of the app? I open things I need to work on--the program its linked to is just a means to an end. Of course I use Macs personally.

That's why I started pinning things to the start menu and switching to small icons. 95% of the programs I use on any given day are right there or in the quick-launch bar. On the odd occasion I need anything else then I go the the scroll or search route.

It's fine. Anyone who wants to use it on an input limited device will quickly get it and anyone who uses the metro UI on a desktop is either using it as a media device, has a touchscreen installed or is an idiot.

Hand Banana: The Program Manager from Windows 3.1 was horrible. Windows 95 was one of the best things they ever did from a UI standpoint, which is why it has worked so well and been copied by almost everyone else for nearly two decades.

I respect your right to think so, but I disagree pretty intensely. And if the Win95 UI was copid, it was because it was successful, not because it was good design from any other perspective.

The Task Bar / Start Menu is a tolerable mistake if you use hotkeys or enjoy using the mouse for the sake of using the mouse. But if you look up actual studies of UI functionality, you'll see that it's slower and less prone to good organization. It just hides its mess.

dennysgod, I hear that a lot about Win7, but personally I detest its look and feel too much to get used to its quirks. And when I watch people using it, their operation of the UI is far slower than my experience of XP. I don't believe I'd put up with it -- I'd definitely commit to a Linux GUI first.

In my experience, which has been blissfully limited, Win7 is way too much bling and way too little bang. I need the OS to do what I want, how I want, and promptly, not to show me chrome and transparencies and a mass of icons.

What Plants Crave:That's why I started pinning things to the start menu and switching to small icons. 95% of the programs I use on any given day are right there or in the quick-launch bar. On the odd occasion I need anything else then I go the the scroll or search route.

[i341.photobucket.com image 640x360]

That column of stuff on the right, what is it? I bet it's some feature I stripped out early on but which I might want to reconsider, as it looks useful combined with small icons.

dennysgod:Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

I agree. So far, Win7 is the best Windows ever made. It's pretty much outstanding. And this is coming from a Mac user (on a MacBook Pro, I dual boot using MacOS for work and general use and Win7 for gaming).

Flint Ironstag:Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

So you can use more than 3GB of RAM? If you don't have that much, then it won't affect you, but this was the main driving force that got me to upgrade from XP to 7. And I'm glad I did. 7 had a lot of little things that it seems to do better than XP, and overall things seem more stable and at least as fast if not faster. Just my experience, though.

runcible spork:What Plants Crave: That's why I started pinning things to the start menu and switching to small icons. 95% of the programs I use on any given day are right there or in the quick-launch bar. On the odd occasion I need anything else then I go the the scroll or search route.

[i341.photobucket.com image 640x360]

That column of stuff on the right, what is it? I bet it's some feature I stripped out early on but which I might want to reconsider, as it looks useful combined with small icons.

dameron:It's fine. Anyone who wants to use it on an input limited device will quickly get it and anyone who uses the metro UI on a desktop is either using it as a media device, has a touchscreen installed or is an idiot.

What Plants Crave:There are a couple of other utilities worth mentioning that really enhance the Windows desktop:

Dexpot for Gnome/Xfce workspaces like functionality (I think it's called Spaces on a Mac)

GridMove for partitioning the screen and confining windows to certain areas (like Aero Snap on steroids).

Will look at those also. I generally keep my desktop clean and do most tasks with keystrokes. But I sometimes like to fiddle, and appreciate good visual and utility design (e.g. foobar customization, selected chrome plug-ins, et al.). Thanks again!

Even at this late stage in the game, it still feels to me like Windows 8 is two operating systems unceremoniously bolted together.

I made this comment when the demo first arrived at trade shows last year. It seems like MS caught wind of it and said "people hate it? fark them let's keep this rolling." It's kind of like any government department.

Seems to me like Microsoft is betting the farm on convertibles being the wave of the (near) future. Maybe they're right.

I've noticed there have been statements that Win8 runs more efficiently than Win7. Nevertheless, it begs the question: Which would you rather have, the Windows you already have that already does everything you need to do, or the Windows you pay extra for that makes it a chore to get there?

mamoru:dennysgod: Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

I agree. So far, Win7 is the best Windows ever made. It's pretty much outstanding. And this is coming from a Mac user (on a MacBook Pro, I dual boot using MacOS for work and general use and Win7 for gaming).

Flint Ironstag: Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

So you can use more than 3GB of RAM? If you don't have that much, then it won't affect you, but this was the main driving force that got me to upgrade from XP to 7. And I'm glad I did. 7 had a lot of little things that it seems to do better than XP, and overall things seem more stable and at least as fast if not faster. Just my experience, though.

Also remember that XP has lost it's support from Microsoft and software developers who now recognize that Vista/7 is what a majority of people have and will have for the next decade.

And if you're going the x64 route (which you should, at least in my opinion) then WinXP 64 is the last thing you should try. That was buggy as hell and no one supported it.

Arguing that XP should only be used because no one supports an OS that came out 25-30 years ago anymore is sad. Technology changes and the interfacing and software to run it has to change too, that's why you don't see Windows 95 natively support 64 bit computing because that wasn't a thing for consumer based computing back then. Hell, it wasn't even thought of for consumer based computing. Sure there may be unnecessary frills in an OS like 7 but you also get some fantastic improvements in built in programs as well, like the windows Defrag (which actually can do shiat now, unlike the XP version) or Microsoft Security (which was a joke 10 years ago).